Background: Although scoping reviews have gained recognition as an independent form of scholarly synthesis, the rhetorical structure of their Discussion sections remains theoretically underdeveloped and is not always implemented effectively in practice. Despite increasing standardization of methodological procedures through frameworks such as PRISMA-ScR and the JBI Manual, the rhetorical conventions governing how findings are presented and how contributions are positioned within the research field remain poorly defined. As a result, the Discussion section in many scoping reviews appears formally structured but substantively diffuse and overloaded with loosely organized commentary. It often fails to fulfill the genre-specific function of scoping reviews: mapping the research landscape and identifying conceptual, methodological, and thematic gaps. Problem: This study aims to identify and describe the rhetorical structure of the Discussion section in scoping reviews by developing a typology of rhetorical moves and steps and analyzing their frequency, communicative functions, and sequencing. The analysis seeks to clarify how authors construct research-based argumentation in a genre that does not rely on empirical synthesis or quality appraisal. Methods: The study is based on a corpus of 50 scoping reviews published between 2019 and 2023 in leading English-language journals on education ranked in the first quartile (Q1) of the SJR index. A two-level rhetorical coding scheme was employed: moves were conceptualized as macro-level functions aligned with genre-specific communicative tasks, while steps were analyzed as micro-level strategies that realize those functions. The initial move categories were identified deductively from established models developed for empirical research articles and were subsequently refined and adapted to the logic of the scoping review genre through iterative analysis. The coding process was carried out by three independent researchers, with disagreements resolved through interpretive discussion supported by textual evidence. Results: The analysis resulted in the identification of six core rhetorical moves specific to the Discussion section in scoping reviews, each serving a distinct communicative purpose. While analytical and evaluative moves were consistently present across the corpus, introductory and interpretive moves exhibited considerable variation and were frequently absent. Only 24% of the articles implemented the full six-move structure. The two-tiered move-step model revealed stable rhetorical patterns, but also highlighted common omissions, such as limited contrastive framing and reference to prior development of the field, insufficient explanatory commentary, and uncritical transfer of rhetorical structures from systematic reviews, which undermine the logic of the scoping review genre. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the Discussion sections in scoping reviews often suffer from rhetorical inconsistency and genre hybridity. In the absence of a coherent rhetorical structure, discussions tend to reproduce results rather than advance interpretation or field-level insight. The proposed move-step model provides a genre-sensitive rhetorical framework that can enhance both the communicative clarity and argumentative precision of scoping reviews. Moreover, the model contributes to a broader understanding of how research-based argumentation functions in non-synthetic academic genres.